Using a social–ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans

One of the key determinants of success in biodiversity conservation is how well conservation planning decisions account for the social system in which actions are to be implemented. Understanding elements of how the social and ecological systems interact can help identify opportunities for implementation. Utilizing data from a large‐scale conservation initiative in southwestern of Australia, we explored how a social–ecological system framework can be applied to identify how social and ecological factors interact to influence the opportunities for conservation. Using data from semistructured interviews, an online survey, and publicly available data, we developed a conceptual model of the social–ecological system associated with the conservation of the Fitz‐Stirling region. We used this model to identify the relevant variables (remnants of vegetation, stakeholder presence, collaboration between stakeholders, and their scale of management) that affect the implementation of conservation actions in the region. We combined measures for these variables to ascertain how areas associated with different levels of ecological importance coincided with areas associated with different levels of stakeholder presence, stakeholder collaboration, and scales of management. We identified areas that could benefit from different implementation strategies, from those suitable for immediate conservation action to areas requiring implementation over the long term to increase on‐the‐ground capacity and identify mechanisms to incentivize implementation. The application of a social–ecological framework can help conservation planners and practitioners facilitate the integration of ecological and social data to inform the translation of priorities for action into implementation strategies that account for the complexities of conservation problems in a focused way.     

Conservation lessons from taboos and trolley problems

Governments pass conservation laws, adopt policies, and make plans yet frequently fail to implement them. Implementation of conservation, however, often requires costly sacrifice: people foregoing benefit for the benefit of biodiversity. Decisions involve trade-offs with outcomes that depend on the values at stake and people's perceptions of those values. Psychology, ethics, and behavioral science have each addressed the challenge of making difficult, often tragic, trade-off decisions. Based on these literatures, values can be classified as secular or sacred, where sacred values are those for which compensation may be unthinkable (e.g., freedom). Taboo trade-offs emerge when secular values are pitted against sacred ones. These are difficult to discuss, much less negotiate. Confronting taboo trade-offs in conservation may require discursive approaches to better understand particular attributes of decisions that place sacred human values at risk. Tragic trade-offs emerge when sacred values are pitted against one another. The trolley problem—a forced choice between 2 unthinkable outcomes—is a simple heuristic illustrating ethical challenges of tragic trade-offs. Behavior studies illustrate that people have a strong aversion to losses where an active choice was made, resulting in a bias toward status quo decisions. Faced with tragic, trolley-problem-like choices, people tend to avoid taking responsibility for action, defer decisions, evade opinions on painful choices, and regret unfortunate outcomes of actions. To help close the implementation gap, conservation actors may need to directly address the psychological, ethical, and behavioral barriers created by the remorse, regret, and moral residue of implementing conservation choices that have tragic outcomes. Recognition of these predictable features of the human psyche may foster better administrative structures to support action with durable outcomes as well as new research directions.     

How decisions about fitting species distribution models affect conservation outcomes

Species distribution models (SDMs) are increasingly used in conservation and land-use planning as inputs to describe biodiversity patterns. These models can be built in different ways, and decisions about data preparation, selection of predictor variables, model fitting, and evaluation all alter the resulting predictions. Commonly, the true distribution of species is unknown and independent data to verify which SDM variant to choose are lacking. Such model uncertainty is of concern to planners. We analyzed how 11 routine decisions about model complexity, predictors, bias treatment, and setting thresholds for predicted values altered conservation priority patterns across 25 species. Models were created with MaxEnt and run through Zonation to determine the priority rank of sites. Although all SDM variants performed well (area under the curve >0.7), they produced spatially different predictions for species and different conservation priority solutions. Priorities were most strongly altered by decisions to not address bias or to apply binary thresholds to predicted values; on average 40% and 35%, respectively, of all grid cells received an opposite priority ranking. Forcing high model complexity altered conservation solutions less than forcing simplicity (14% and 24% of cells with opposite rank values, respectively). Use of fewer species records to build models or choosing alternative bias treatments had intermediate effects (25% and 23%, respectively). Depending on modeling choices, priority areas overlapped as little as 10–20% with the baseline solution, affecting top and bottom priorities differently. Our results demonstrate the extent of model-based uncertainty and quantify the relative impacts of SDM building decisions. When it is uncertain what the best SDM approach and conservation plan is, solving uncertainty or considering alterative options is most important for those decisions that change plans the most.     

Recognizing reflexivity among conservation practitioners

When deciding how to conserve biodiversity, practitioners navigate diverse missions, sometimes conflicting approaches, and uncertain trade-offs. These choices are based not only on evidence, funders’ priorities, stakeholders’ interests, and policies, but also on practitioners’ personal experiences, backgrounds, and values. Calls for greater reflexivity—an individual or group's ability to examine themselves in relation to their actions and interactions with others—have appeared in the conservation science literature. But what role does reflexivity play in conservation practice? We explored how self-reflection can shape how individuals and groups conserve nature. To provide examples of reflexivity in conservation practice, we conducted a year-long series of workshop discussions and online exchanges. During these, we examined cases from the peer-reviewed and gray literature, our own experiences, and conversations with 10 experts. Reflexivity among practitioners spanned individual and collective levels and informal and formal settings. Reflexivity also encompassed diverse themes, including practitioners’ values, emotional struggles, social identities, training, cultural backgrounds, and experiences of success and failure. Reflexive processes also have limitations, dangers, and costs. Informal and institutionalized reflexivity requires allocation of limited time and resources, can be hard to put into practice, and alone cannot solve conservation challenges. Yet, when intentionally undertaken, reflexive processes might be integrated into adaptive management cycles at multiple points, helping conservation practitioners better reach their goals. Reflexivity could also play a more transformative role in conservation by motivating practitioners to reevaluate their goals and methods entirely. Reflexivity might help the conservation movement imagine and thus work toward a better world for wildlife, people, and the conservation sector itself.     

Bridging research and practice in conservation

Calls for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence based are growing, and we agree evidence use in conservation practice needs improvement. However, evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. In medicine, unlike in conservation, a well-established and well-funded layer of intermediary individuals and organizations engage with medical practitioners, synthesize primary research relevant to decision making, and make evidence easily accessible. These intermediaries prepare targeted evidence summaries and distribute them to practitioners faced with time-sensitive and value-laden decisions. To be effective, these intermediaries, who we refer to as evidence bridges, should identify research topics based on the priorities of practitioners; synthesize evidence; prepare and distribute easy-to-find and easy-to-use evidence summaries; and develop and maintain networks of connections with researchers and practitioners. Based on a review of the literature regarding evidence intermediaries in conservation and environmental management, as well as an anonymous questionnaire searching for such organizations, we found few intermediaries that met all these criteria. Few evidence bridges that do exist are unable to reach most conservation practitioners, which include resource managers in government and industry, conservation organizations, and farmers and other private landowners. We argue that the lack of evidence bridges from research to practitioners contributes to evidence complacency and limits the use of evidence in conservation action. Nevertheless, several existing organizations help reduce the gap between evidence and practice and could serve as a foundation for building additional components of evidence bridges in conservation. Although evidence bridges need expertise in research and evidence synthesis, they also require expertise in identifying and communicating with the community of practitioners most in need of clear and concise syntheses of evidence. Article Impact Statement: Evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. We call for intermediary evidence bridges.     

Factors associated with preemptive conservation under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

In recent decades, there has been an increasing emphasis on proactive efforts to conserve species being considered for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) before they are listed (i.e., preemptive conservation). These efforts, which depend on voluntary actions by public and private land managers across the species’ range, aim to conserve species while avoiding regulatory costs associated with ESA listing. We collected data for a set of social, economic, environmental, and institutional factors that we hypothesized would influence voluntary decisions to promote or inhibit preemptive conservation of species under consideration for ESA listing. We used logistic regression to estimate the association of these factors with preemptive conservation outcomes based on data for a set of species that entered the ESA listing process and were either officially listed (n = 314) or preemptively conserved (n = 73) from 1996 to 2018. Factors significantly associated with precluded listing due to preemptive conservation included high baseline conservation status, low proportion of private land across the species’ range, small total range size, exposure to specific types of threats, and species’ range extending over several states. These results highlight strategies that can help improve conservation outcomes, such as allocating resources for imperiled species earlier in the listing process, addressing specific threats, and expanding incentives and coordination mechanisms for conservation on private lands.     

Lessons from other disciplines for setting management thresholds for biodiversity conservation

Successful, state-dependent management, in which the goal of management is to maintain a system in a desired state, involves defining the boundaries between different states. Once these boundaries have been defined, managers require a strategic action plan with thresholds that initiate management interventions to either maintain or return the system to a desired state. This approach to management is widely used across diverse industries from agriculture, to medicine, to information technology, but it has only been adopted in conservation management relatively recently. Conservation practitioners have expressed a willingness to integrate this structured approach in their management systems, but they have also voiced concerns, including lack of a robust process for doing so. Given the widespread use of state-dependent management in other fields, we conducted an extensive review of the literature on threshold-based management to gain insight into how and where it is applied and identify potential lessons for conservation management. We identified 22 industries using 75 different methods for setting management thresholds in 843 studies. Methods spanned six broad approaches, including expert driven, statistical, predictive, optimization, experimental, and artificial intelligence methods. The objectives of each of these studies influenced the approaches used, including the methods for setting thresholds and selecting actions, and the number of thresholds set. The role of value judgments in setting thresholds was clear; studies across all industries frequently involved experts in setting thresholds, often accompanied by computational tools to simulate the consequences of proposed thresholds under different conditions. Of the 30 conservation studies examined, two-thirds used expert-driven methods, consistent with prior evidence that experience-based information often drives conservation management decisions. The methods we identified from other disciplines could help conservation decision makers set thresholds for management interventions in different contexts, linking monitoring to management actions and ensuring that conservation interventions are timely and effective.     

Relationships between hope,optimism, and conservation engagement

The loss and degradation of nature can lead to hopelessness and despair, which may undermine engagement in conservation actions. Emerging movements, such as that behind the organization Conservation Optimism, aim to avert potential despair of those involved in conservation. Some argue that fostering positive states, such as hope or optimism, can motivate engagement and action; however, others question whether fostering hope or optimism may inadvertently undermine perceived gravity of conservation challenges. We examined this issue by quantifying dispositional hope and optimism with a representative sample of Australians (n = 4285) and assessing their relationship with indicators of conservation engagement. We used the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia as a case study. We asked participants what they could do to help the GBR, then classified their responses into 2 outcome variables: identifying climate actions (i.e., actions that tackle the main threat to the reef) and identifying plastic actions (i.e., actions that are popular among community members). We also quantified likelihood of performing these actions and appraisals of both threats and actions. One dimension of hope, hope pathways (defined by Snyder's hope theory as knowing different ways to act), was associated with greater capacity to identify climate-related behaviors (odds ratio [OR] = 1.44) and plastic reduction behaviors (OR = 1.22) and greater likelihood of adopting climate-related actions (β = 0.20). Optimism was associated with recognition of plastic reduction behaviors only (OR = 1.22). Neither hope nor optimism undermined appraisal of conservation threats. The effects of optimism were mediated by reduced action futility, and effects of hope pathways were mediated by stronger perceptions of threats to the reef (threat appraisal) and confidence in performing useful actions (coping appraisal). Our findings suggest that dispositional hope can strengthen, rather than undermine, appraisal of conservation challenges and solutions and thereby increase conservation engagement.     

Making a case for the consideration of trust,justice, and power in conservation relationships

In conservation, trust and justice are increasingly recognized as both intrinsically valuable and critical for successful socioecological outcomes. However, the interdependence between these concepts has not been explored. The conservation trust literature provides examples of efforts to build trust between conservationists and local actors; yet, these interventions are often conceived to incentivize local cooperation within dominant paradigms. We argue that when trust building is promoted as a technical fix that does not plan in advance to address power asymmetries in conservation practice, inequities may inadvertently be re-embedded. Therefore, we conceptualized a framework that joins trust, justice, and power so that critical analyses of conservation partnerships can be more effectively undertaken. We drew on environmental justice theory to better calibrate the trust literature for the historical-political settings of conservation, especially in the Global South. Justice and trust share strong theoretical links where perceptions of justice shape a willingness to trust, and, equally, trust is a precondition for justice to be perceived. Different forms of trust connect to varied domains of justice and power in different ways, which mediates the outcomes of interventions. We applied our framework to case studies to explore how these interdependences play out in practice. Failure of agencies to attend to issues of maldistribution, misrecognition of cultural values and knowledge, and exclusion from participation strongly compromised trust. Moreover, the ways in which nature-dependent communities and marginalized conservation workers are trusted, or the conditions under which they give trust, can lead to partnerships being perceived as just or unjust. Focusing on trust and justice can help identify power dynamics so they can be addressed more readily and create space for alternative understandings of partnerships.     

Cautioning against overemphasis of normative constructs in conservation decision making

Questions around how to conserve nature are increasingly leading to dissonance in conservation planning and action. While science can assist in unraveling the nature of conservation challenges, conservation responses rely heavily on normative positions and constructs to order actions, aid interpretations, and provide motivation. However, problems can arise when norms are mistaken for science or when they stymy scientific rigor. To highlight these potential pitfalls, we used the ethics-based tool of argument analysis to assess a controversial conservation intervention, the Pelorus Island Goat Control Program. The program proponents' argument for restorative justice was unsound because it relied on weak logical construction overly entrenched in normative assumptions. Overreliance on normative constructs, particularly the invocation of tragedy, creates a sense of urgency that can subvert scientific and ethical integrity, obscure values and assumptions, and increase the propensity for flawed logic. This example demonstrates how the same constructs that drive biodiversity conservation can also drive poor decision making, spur public backlash, and justify poor animal welfare outcomes. To provide clarity, a decision-making flowchart we devised demonstrates how values, norms, and ethics influence one another. We recommend practitioners follow 3 key points to improve decision making: be aware of values, as well as normative constructs and ethical theories that those values inform; be mindful of overreliance on either normative constructs or ethics when deciding action is justified; and be logically sound and transparent when building justifications. We also recommend 5 key attributes that practitioners should be attentive to when making conservation decisions: clarity, transparency, scientific integrity, adaptiveness, and compassion. Greater attention to the role of norms in decision making will improve conservation outcomes and garner greater public support for actions.     

The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners’ management decisions

A major justification of environmental management research is that it helps practitioners, yet previous studies show it is rarely used to inform their decisions. We tested whether conservation practitioners focusing on bird management were willing to use a synopsis of relevant scientific literature to inform their management decisions. This allowed us to examine whether the limited use of scientific information in management is due to a lack of access to the scientific literature or whether it is because practitioners are either not interested or unable to incorporate the research into their decisions. In on‐line surveys, we asked 92 conservation managers, predominantly from Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, to provide opinions on 28 management techniques that could be applied to reduce predation on birds. We asked their opinions before and after giving them a summary of the literature about the interventions’ effectiveness. We scored the overall effectiveness and certainty of evidence for each intervention through an expert elicitation process—the Delphi method. We used the effectiveness scores to assess the practitioners’ level of understanding and awareness of the literature. On average, each survey participant changed their likelihood of using 45.7% of the interventions after reading the synopsis of the evidence. They were more likely to implement effective interventions and avoid ineffective actions, suggesting that their intended future management strategies may be more successful than current practice. More experienced practitioners were less likely to change their management practices than those with less experience, even though they were not more aware of the existing scientific information than less experienced practitioners. The practitioners’ willingness to change their management choices when provided with summarized scientific evidence suggests that improved accessibility to scientific information would benefit conservation management outcomes. El Efecto de la Evidencia Científica sobre las Decisiones de Manejo de Quienes Practican la Conservación     

Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science–practice interface in ecology and conservation

The debate in the literature on the science–practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.     

An introduction to decision science for conservation

Biodiversity conservation decisions are difficult, especially when they involve differing values, complex multidimensional objectives, scarce resources, urgency, and considerable uncertainty. Decision science embodies a theory about how to make difficult decisions and an extensive array of frameworks and tools that make that theory practical. We sought to improve conceptual clarity and practical application of decision science to help decision makers apply decision science to conservation problems. We addressed barriers to the uptake of decision science, including a lack of training and awareness of decision science; confusion over common terminology and which tools and frameworks to apply; and the mistaken impression that applying decision science must be time consuming, expensive, and complex. To aid in navigating the extensive and disparate decision science literature, we clarify meaning of common terms: decision science, decision theory, decision analysis, structured decision-making, and decision-support tools. Applying decision science does not have to be complex or time consuming; rather, it begins with knowing how to think through the components of a decision utilizing decision analysis (i.e., define the problem, elicit objectives, develop alternatives, estimate consequences, and perform trade-offs). This is best achieved by applying a rapid-prototyping approach. At each step, decision-support tools can provide additional insight and clarity, whereas decision-support frameworks (e.g., priority threat management and systematic conservation planning) can aid navigation of multiple steps of a decision analysis for particular contexts. We summarize key decision-support frameworks and tools and describe to which step of a decision analysis, and to which contexts, each is most useful to apply. Our introduction to decision science will aid in contextualizing current approaches and new developments, and help decision makers begin to apply decision science to conservation problems.     

Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary

There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management‐relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence‐based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research‐focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary‐spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge–action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making. Logrando que la Ciencia de la Conservación Trasponga la Frontera Conocimiento‐Acción     

Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting

A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors’ intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well‐established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill‐defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations. Seis Errores Comunes en la Definición de Prioridades de Conservación     

Microtargeting for conservation

Widespread human action and behavior change is needed to achieve many conservation goals. Doing so at the requisite scale and pace will require the efficient delivery of outreach campaigns. Conservation gains will be greatest when efforts are directed toward places of high conservation value (or need) and tailored to critical actors. Recent strategic conservation planning has relied primarily on spatial assessments of biophysical attributes, largely ignoring the human dimensions. Elsewhere, marketers, political campaigns, and others use microtargeting—predictive analytics of big data—to identify people most likely to respond positively to particular messages or interventions. Conservationists have not yet widely capitalized on these techniques. To investigate the effectiveness of microtargeting to improve conservation, we developed a propensity model to predict restoration behavior among 203,645 private landowners in a 5,200,000 ha study area in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (U.S.A.). To isolate the additional value microtargeting may offer beyond geospatial prioritization, we analyzed a new high-resolution land-cover data set and cadastral data to identify private owners of riparian areas needing restoration. Subsequently, we developed and evaluated a restoration propensity model based on a database of landowners who had conducted restoration in the past and those who had not (n = 4978). Model validation in a parallel database (n = 4989) showed owners with the highest scorers for propensity to conduct restoration (i.e., top decile) were over twice as likely as average landowners to have conducted restoration (135%). These results demonstrate that microtargeting techniques can dramatically increase the efficiency and efficacy of conservation programs, above and beyond the advances offered by biophysical prioritizations alone, as well as facilitate more robust research of many social–ecological systems.     

Boosting freshwater fish conservation with high-resolution distribution mapping across a large territory

The lack of high-resolution distribution maps for freshwater species across large extents fundamentally challenges biodiversity conservation worldwide. We devised a simple framework to delineate the distributions of freshwater fishes in a high-resolution drainage map based on stacked species distribution models and expert information. We applied this framework to the entire Chinese freshwater fish fauna (>1600 species) to examine high-resolution biodiversity patterns and reveal potential conflicts between freshwater biodiversity and anthropogenic disturbances. The correlations between spatial patterns of biodiversity facets (species richness, endemicity, and phylogenetic diversity) were all significant (r = 0.43–0.98, p < 0.001). Areas with high values of different biodiversity facets overlapped with anthropogenic disturbances. Existing protected areas (PAs), covering 22% of China's territory, protected 25–29% of fish habitats, 16–23% of species, and 30–31% of priority conservation areas. Moreover, 6–21% of the species were completely unprotected. These results suggest the need for extending the network of PAs to ensure the conservation of China's freshwater fishes and the goods and services they provide. Specifically, middle to low reaches of large rivers and their associated lakes from northeast to southwest China hosted the most diverse species assemblages and thus should be the target of future expansions of the network of PAs. More generally, our framework, which can be used to draw high-resolution freshwater biodiversity maps combining species occurrence data and expert knowledge on species distribution, provides an efficient way to design PAs regardless of the ecosystem, taxonomic group, or region considered.     

Confronting Uncertainty and Missing Values in Environmental Value Transfer as Applied to Species Conservation

Abstract: The nonuse (or passive) value of nature is important but time‐consuming and costly to quantify with direct surveys. In the absence of estimates of these values, there will likely be less investment in conservation actions that generate substantial nonuse benefits, such as conservation of native species. To help overcome decisions about the allocation of conservation dollars that reflect the lack of estimates of nonuse values, these values can be estimated indirectly by environmental value transfer (EVT). EVT uses existing data or information from a study site such that the estimated monetary value of an environmental good is transferred to another location or policy site. A major challenge in the use of EVT is the uncertainty about the sign and size of the error (i.e., the percentage by which transferred value exceeds the actual value) that results from transferring direct estimates of nonuse values from a study to a policy site, the site where the value is transferred. An EVT is most useful if the decision‐making framework does not require highly accurate information and when the conservation decision is constrained by time and financial resources. To account for uncertainty in the decision‐making process, a decision heuristic that guides the decision process and illustrates the possible decision branches, can be followed. To account for the uncertainty associated with the transfer of values from one site to another, we developed a risk and simulation approach that uses Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the net benefits of conservation investments and takes into account different possible distributions of transfer error. This method does not reduce transfer error, but it provides a way to account for the effect of transfer error in conservation decision making. Our risk and simulation approach and decision‐based framework on when to use EVT offer better‐informed decision making in conservation.     

Conservation and Adaptation to Climate Change

Abstract: The need to adapt to climate change has become increasingly apparent, and many believe the practice of biodiversity conservation will need to alter to face this challenge. Conservation organizations are eager to determine how they should adapt their practices to climate change. This involves asking the fundamental question of what adaptation to climate change means. Most studies on climate change and conservation, if they consider adaptation at all, assume it is equivalent to the ability of species to adapt naturally to climate change as stated in Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Adaptation, however, can refer to an array of activities that range from natural adaptation, at one end of the spectrum, to sustainability science in coupled human and natural systems at the other. Most conservation organizations deal with complex systems in which adaptation to climate change involves making decisions on priorities for biodiversity conservation in the face of dynamic risks and involving the public in these decisions. Discursive methods such as analytic deliberation are useful for integrating scientific knowledge with public perceptions and values, particularly when large uncertainties and risks are involved. The use of scenarios in conservation planning is a useful way to build shared understanding at the science–policy interface. Similarly, boundary organizations—organizations or institutions that bridge different scales or mediate the relationship between science and policy—could prove useful for managing the transdisciplinary nature of adaptation to climate change, providing communication and brokerage services and helping to build adaptive capacity. The fact that some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are active across the areas of science, policy, and practice makes them well placed to fulfill this role in integrated assessments of biodiversity conservation and adaptation to climate change.     

Improving inferences about private land conservation by accounting for incomplete reporting

Private lands provide key habitat for imperiled species and are core components of function protectected area networks; yet, their incorporation into national and regional conservation planning has been challenging. Identifying locations where private landowners are likely to participate in conservation initiatives can help avoid conflict and clarify trade-offs between ecological benefits and sociopolitical costs. Empirical, spatially explicit assessment of the factors associated with conservation on private land is an emerging tool for identifying future conservation opportunities. However, most data on private land conservation are voluntarily reported and incomplete, which complicates these assessments. We used a novel application of occupancy models to analyze the occurrence of conservation easements on private land. We compared multiple formulations of occupancy models with a logistic regression model to predict the locations of conservation easements based on a spatially explicit social–ecological systems framework. We combined a simulation experiment with a case study of easement data in Idaho and Montana (United States) to illustrate the utility of the occupancy framework for modeling conservation on private land. Occupancy models that explicitly accounted for variation in reporting produced estimates of predictors that were substantially less biased than estimates produced by logistic regression under all simulated conditions. Occupancy models produced estimates for the 6 predictors we evaluated in our case study that were larger in magnitude, but less certain than those produced by logistic regression. These results suggest that occupancy models result in qualitatively different inferences regarding the effects of predictors on conservation easement occurrence than logistic regression and highlight the importance of integrating variable and incomplete reporting of participation in empirical analysis of conservation initiatives. Failure to do so can lead to emphasizing the wrong social, institutional, and environmental factors that enable conservation and underestimating conservation opportunities in landscapes where social norms or institutional constraints inhibit reporting.